If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith
Both Germany under Hitler and Russia under Stalin and his successors were dictatorships. They proclaimed differing ideologies, but like most actual dictatorships in the Twentieth century what they did was usually at variance with their proclaimed ideologies and often directly contradictory to it.
Analyzed objectively the actual states were both forms of Capitalism simply because they relied on Capital (money) as the medium of exchange. The best classification for both of them, in my opinion, is probably "State Capitalism" but they both used a different set of lies to keep the population more or less pacified.
The main distinguishing feature is that the Soviet regime was explicitly anti-nationalist, whereas Hitler proclaimed an extreme form of nationalism.
Carl should remember the story of Abraham Lincoln who when asked "If you call a tail a leg how many legs does a sheep have?" allegedly replied "Four - calling a tail a leg doesn't make it into one".
Calling yourself a "Socialist" doesn't make you into a Socialist. And calling the Nazis "left wing" doesn't make them left wing no matter how often you repeat it.
I see many definition here and I understand everybody opinions.
Personaly I refer to what create a regime in the beginning. Who voted for them. In the cas of the NAZI, it was a National Socialist party. They won the first election as a minority. Then on second election they got the majority.
I do the same for the soviet regime. Who beleived in this system and who created it in the first place. It was left-wing movement. People who beleived in communism or socialism national or not. The system did not go like they wanted I understand.
Now the eco-extremists seems to come from the same socialist category. Here in Quebec probably 90% of the population is National Socialist and the warming propaganta works very well. They want to change the way of life, they use extremes solutions, they break laws, they break the scientist rules and they try to control the press.
Just an example, they threw beer bottles on my Hummer H2 while my kids are aboard, they scratched it many times so I had to repair it and repaint it many times, they spit on it, they write on it, they horn at us, they insult me in restaurants, they write articles in the local newspaper about me and my vehicule, they put messages on my wipers, they stop their cars on the side to let me go while they insult us, I had to change the front window 3 times, and we even had to go in court because of violence done while we had 4 kids aboard. And they do it everyday that it is on the road. Is'nt it the way it started in germany 55 years ago? Will this lead to pacific movement in the future?
Today it is my hummer, but in ten years if they get elected with a majority, will they closed the gas stations? Will they give the right to make only one kid to control the population size in Quebec? Will we have a quota of 200 foot square limit per person per house? Will we have a quota of shoes we can buy?
Will my wife be beated by people if she go out with a car too big or too expansive? Will my kids be beated at university if they go to school by car in ten years?
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Saturday, 19th December, 2009, 05:39 PM.
Personaly I refer to what create a regime in the beginning. Who voted for them.
Well, that allows you to use words to mean what you want them to mean. Which means nobody else can understand what you mean, so one wonders why you bother posting? It's a discussion board and it's rather pointless to have a discussion with someone who redefines words whenever he likes. Which is probably why no one listens to you.
Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith
I see. So communism is many different things, and fascism is many different things, etc. Some people like to take one definition and call that one "correct", while others take a different definition and a neverending debate ensues because one person's "orange" is actually a grapefruit, and the other's is a lime.
So before we go any further debating whose which is what,... where are we going with this topic?
I see. So communism is many different things, and fascism is many different things, etc. Some people like to take one definition and call that one "correct", while others take a different definition and a neverending debate ensues because one person's "orange" is actually a grapefruit, and the other's is a lime.
There is, alas, nothing new about this situation. Have you read any Orwell recently? He who controls the language controls thought, and thus the world. Few are astute enough to not be fooled at least occasionally.
Well, that allows you to use words to mean what you want them to mean. Which means nobody else can understand what you mean, so one wonders why you bother posting? It's a discussion board and it's rather pointless to have a discussion with someone who redefines words whenever he likes. Which is probably why no one listens to you.
It is easier than that.
Ultra-socialism regimes produce big governments and this can lead to different bad systems like: dictatorship and/or wars and/or communism and/or genocide, etc.
It starts with a big social cause and it may lead to something ugly, left or right.
I thought it was getting to climate Nazis or some such things.
Now Obama can get some kind of Nobel prize for saving the climate and the planet.
To me it looks like paying some money and business as usual. The coal mines will close when there is no more coal to mine.
In Copennag they have an agreement on a maximum warming of 2 degrees. With the climategate, it is quite possible than in the next year the actual warming will be estimated to something in the range of -0.3 to +0.3. If this is the case then I suppose there will be nothing to do to achieve the agreement.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Sunday, 20th December, 2009, 12:46 AM.
Well, that allows you to use words to mean what you want them to mean. Which means nobody else can understand what you mean, so one wonders why you bother posting? It's a discussion board and it's rather pointless to have a discussion with someone who redefines words whenever he likes. Which is probably why no one listens to you.
Not only that, I think he is also saying that we should not allow any "big" initiatives to be undertaken by any government, because even if it has good intentions, it will lead to socialism hell and even genocide. Not "might lead" to those things, but "will lead" to those things.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Some on the left-wing dislike that NAZI was a socialist movement. Nazi means "National Socialism" and came at a time when there was a lot of unemployed in the country. With their Socialism politics they gave 100% jobs to the people like any socialism party should do. When someone from the left says that it was both, it is too easy. In 50 years, some people from the left will probably associate Communism of the twennieth century to left and right.
Listen to me: genocides and wars of the NAZI can not be associated to a left-wing movement only. People from the left or the right can do stupid killings. It is simply human extremism. But in the case of the NAZI or the Soviet regime, when the people expect a left-wing Socialism goverment to take from them their responsabilities then this is where it can go. In Quebec the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois are National Socialism party like the NAZI were and it will not lead to any genocide. But like in Germany and Soviet Union, it lead to very very BIG governments with a lot of money and a lot of influence in all aspect of the life of the people. When a extremist comes to lead such a goverment then he has a very BIG power and a lot of Money and millions of Government Employees just like the NAZI had.
So if you look at the NAZI from its origin, it is a Socialism regime just like we have in Quebec. But if you look at the end of the regime then you see dictature when at the beginning there was democracy. You see genocide when at the beginning there was simply jobs.
Take for example yourself. We can see from your readings how much your are left-wing convince and this is very good because you care for the world and the environment. But read the whole current thread and you will see what I explain. It is you a left-wing that took the most radical positions and the worst personnal and radical insults. If we give you tomorrow the title of "Emperor of Americas" then you could say like you said previouly:
"No matter how much it cost, no matter the consequence, lets build a forest over the ocean to save the air. Money is not important since it is the life of people. No matter the cost." So it means that your goverment would raise very big taxes and become very very BIG to save the people just like the Communists movements wanted to do in its origin or the NAZI. But see how people in the end were prisonners of these big goverments in Germany, China, in Soviet union, in Cuba. Your decisions to build such a forest, no matter the cost, over the ocean means that even if I don't agree, you will take fiscal money and taxes to achieve your goverment priority projects instead of mine. If the forest require that 25% of the population work on the project then "at any cost" means that you would have to mobilize young people by law. The day we would discover there was no problem with CO2 your goverment with its stupid forest project could start to control the media to hide the truth (a big goverment spend a lot of money in media, they will say what you want them to say). And I can imagine how many other projects you would have with people taxes. Imagine when an industrial sector go bad in Canada at the head of the Canada you would Nationalize it to save it from the bad americans that you dislike just like the Castros are doing or like we do in Quebec with wine, electriicty, daycare, pension management, etc.
This is how a left-wing National Socialism regime lead to what we have seen in europe in the last century. Big goverments remove the power and the "will for success" from the people hands so that more and more solutions has to come from the goverment and the easiest way for a businessman to do money is now via corruption of goverment employees.
There's so many things to attack here, I don't know where to begin.
These are just the rantings of an elitist idiot who wants government to get out of his way so he can engage his own business in any way he wishes with no regulations whatsoever in his way. So he can drive a Hummer, or what the heck, one for each of his kids too, and his wife, so they can parade down main street when they go shopping, each in their own Hummer, showing the whole town what their "will to success" has bought them, while the rest of the town gazes at them in awe.
Carl, you can substitute "business" wherever you use the word "government" and the result could be the same. Business could promise jobs, and could end up in genocide or dictatorship.... or FRAUD. Ever hear of Steve Madoff? Ever hear of Enron? And how about those oil companies?
You misinterpret my position on the "forest on the ocean" idea. I only said that it should be undertaken, regardless of cost, IF it was shown to be true what the global climate change scientists are claiming, that we are in danger of human catastrophe on a global scale. IF that is true, THEN we must undertake SOMETHING THAT WILL CHANGE THINGS, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST. If the "forest on the ocean" idea will do this, then do it, no matter the cost. It seems like it should be done anyway, because it will get us all off of imported oil and generate virtually free energy from wind and sun. That is my position. Will that lead to genocide or dictatorship? Maybe it will, I can't guarantee it won't, but also, YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE IT WILL.
I've also said on another thread that there should be an international court case to prove or disprove global climate change. We use courts to prove guilt or innocence of crime suspects. We should courts and juries to prove or disprove climate change and man's involvement in it. No one has responded to this, and you conveniently ignore this and call me "left wing".
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I see many definition here and I understand everybody opinions.
Personaly I refer to what create a regime in the beginning. Who voted for them. In the cas of the NAZI, it was a National Socialist party. They won the first election as a minority. Then on second election they got the majority.
I do the same for the soviet regime. Who beleived in this system and who created it in the first place. It was left-wing movement. People who beleived in communism or socialism national or not. The system did not go like they wanted I understand.
Now the eco-extremists seems to come from the same socialist category. Here in Quebec probably 90% of the population is National Socialist and the warming propaganta works very well. They want to change the way of life, they use extremes solutions, they break laws, they break the scientist rules and they try to control the press.
Just an example, they threw beer bottles on my Hummer H2 while my kids are aboard, they scratched it many times so I had to repair it and repaint it many times, they spit on it, they write on it, they horn at us, they insult me in restaurants, they write articles in the local newspaper about me and my vehicule, they put messages on my wipers, they stop their cars on the side to let me go while they insult us, I had to change the front window 3 times, and we even had to go in court because of violence done while we had 4 kids aboard. And they do it everyday that it is on the road. Is'nt it the way it started in germany 55 years ago? Will this lead to pacific movement in the future?
Today it is my hummer, but in ten years if they get elected with a majority, will they closed the gas stations? Will they give the right to make only one kid to control the population size in Quebec? Will we have a quota of 200 foot square limit per person per house? Will we have a quota of shoes we can buy?
Will my wife be beated by people if she go out with a car too big or too expansive? Will my kids be beated at university if they go to school by car in ten years?
Carl
So you're saying that if a movement starts off as "socialist" (which you claim for the Nazis) and they end up as fascist, then whatever they do once they are fascist should be marked against socialism?
Well then, if America started off as a free society and we end up (under Obama or anyone else) as a bankrupt left-wing 3rd world nation, then we should blame the attempt to be a free society. Because Obama is the product of what America began with. The electoral laws that allowed Obama to come to power can all be traced back to the American Constitution.
Carl, you need to learn to put blame where it belongs. You need to learn to recognize that extreme right-wing policies can't be blamed on a socialist movement to put everyone to work and give everyone jobs. But you can't do this because you are anti-government.
What's interesting about all this is the movement against anything which may be "too big to fail". Carl complains against big government, but the same complaints are now pervasive even in the U.S. against big banks, big brokerages, big insurance companies. There is a movement afoot to prevent ANYTHING from becoming too big to fail. Perhaps this is a new political movement? Something that will make political history?
The next target in this movement is government budgets of sovereign nations. Greece and Spain are now on the verge of government debt default. The investment world is very worried that this is the beginning of a cascade of sovereign debt default that might cause global financial catastrophe.
It doesn't surprise me, Carl, that you drive a Hummer. You probably drive it without a thought for the environment or of anyone else but yourself. You are on your way, it seems, from becoming "too big to fail" thanks to your "will to success". But your success hurts others. Too big to fail hurts too little to matter. And unchecked, it all hurts humanity as a whole, or at least that is the debate that seems to be arising.
The people who throw beer bottles at your Hummer are not against you, they are against your Hummer. It is a symbol of "too big to fail". If you could learn some humility and responsibility (which you claim big government takes away from the people, not even realizing some people such as yourself don't even HAVE responsibility), you would turn in your Hummer, take a smaller hybrid as a replacement, and be happy.
Not gonna happen. Carl wants what Carl wants, everyone else be damned.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
So you're saying that if a movement starts off as "socialist" (which you claim for the Nazis) and they end up as fascist, then whatever they do once they are fascist should be marked against socialism?
Well then, if America started off as a free society and we end up (under Obama or anyone else) as a bankrupt left-wing 3rd world nation, then we should blame the attempt to be a free society. Because Obama is the product of what America began with. The electoral laws that allowed Obama to come to power can all be traced back to the American Constitution.
Carl, you need to learn to put blame where it belongs. You need to learn to recognize that extreme right-wing policies can't be blamed on a socialist movement to put everyone to work and give everyone jobs. But you can't do this because you are anti-government.
What's interesting about all this is the movement against anything which may be "too big to fail". Carl complains against big government, but the same complaints are now pervasive even in the U.S. against big banks, big brokerages, big insurance companies. There is a movement afoot to prevent ANYTHING from becoming too big to fail. Perhaps this is a new political movement? Something that will make political history?
The next target in this movement is government budgets of sovereign nations. Greece and Spain are now on the verge of government debt default. The investment world is very worried that this is the beginning of a cascade of sovereign debt default that might cause global financial catastrophe.
It doesn't surprise me, Carl, that you drive a Hummer. You probably drive it without a thought for the environment or of anyone else but yourself. You are on your way, it seems, from becoming "too big to fail" thanks to your "will to success". But your success hurts others. Too big to fail hurts too little to matter. And unchecked, it all hurts humanity as a whole, or at least that is the debate that seems to be arising.
The people who throw beer bottles at your Hummer are not against you, they are against your Hummer. It is a symbol of "too big to fail". If you could learn some humility and responsibility (which you claim big government takes away from the people, not even realizing some people such as yourself don't even HAVE responsibility), you would turn in your Hummer, take a smaller hybrid as a replacement, and be happy.
Not gonna happen. Carl wants what Carl wants, everyone else be damned.
When I bought the Hummer H2 a few years ago, my kids were 1, 3, 4, and 6 years old and my wife was pregnant. I bought it for the safety of my so young kids because I love them so much. The previous other cars it replace were a Mercedes and the previous one a Volvo for security reasons but they don't have enough seat so we changed them.
I feel sorry to see this agressivity in your comments which look to be very similar to those people able to thow bottles of beers on a family car having so many scared young kids inside and a baby with glasses all over the body and in his eyes.
The data show clearly that CO2 is not causing warming. Why would I care? If data was showing a problem, human with technologies will find solutions. But so far no problem at all. They lied about the data and they throw me beer bottle.... this is very ridiculous. To me it is like comdemning somebody that does not believe in Jesus when there is no proof that the guy was a god and when there is no law that force me to believe in stupid things like gods.
If we talk about the average spending of CO2 of everybody in my family then it is smaller than some having a hybrid car like you say. I have a neigbor who drive a hybrid but he takes nobody with him. When he does 20000 km in a year he produce a certain amount of CO2.
In my case, the Hummer was planned for family transport and not to go to work. If you divide the number of average people inside it (6 or 7 persons) then everybody in my family spend less CO2 tons than the average hybrid driver. Each member spend less than the average Honda Civic single drive. Will I throw them rocks? No.
But probably you feel that my kids are simple "pets" and they don't have the same CO2 rights that you have. But who gave you more rights of CO2 tons than my kids. Is it a god?
This hummer is used mostly on weekends since we normally take the train when we go at our offices. But do I have to write it on the car so that people can take a less agressive decision. Should I write on it the amont of people inside it to help people like you make a computation? Do you realize than most of our agressors spend probably more than each of us in CO2 tons?
I think that when people listen to TV and believe anything they ear without putting some rational thinking then it leads to people agressivity and violence.
In IRAN people throw rocks to women that dress in a way it offence others. Here agressive people like you with your agressive comments or the ones that throw bottles of beers on my car are the same in my mind. You want to change the behavior of others and if violence is required, lets go. If insults is required then lets go.
In the end you and eco-extremists are simply reproducing what other radical socialists have done in then past in europe to changed the world from its "very bad fate that needed to be changed": disinformation, violence, media control, agressive comments, flag the "bad ones" and throw rocks to them. Why don't you write a book: "CO2 - The final solution" so that the goverment could start building gas chambers for people with "bad behaviors" that hurts.
So when a "radical" says I am a moron, I put it in the bag of todays's extremists.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Sunday, 20th December, 2009, 09:58 AM.
I don't think it will be easy to find scientists to do a rational scientific work with the data. When you become interested in climate science, you are like a doctor who wants to save life of people. Could we ask a doctor in a hospital to save 75% of the kids and take a risk for 25% of them? I think it is the same for climate scientists, they simply can't let something go along when they feel it could be a problem even if they have to lie and brake scientific protocols. They are not bad people, they wants to save us from ourself and have no confidence in human nature and capitalism to trace the future. Put them in jail and they should still be proud to have taken the best decisions to save humanity from its fate.
Carl
No one is a bad person if you ask them about themselves. Even serial killers will find some way of spinning their actions and deeds. For the climate scientists it is all about funding. We are not talking about small amounts of money. You can see some discussion of the research funds available in the climategate emails.
For the UN it is a power grab and the hope that they can put themselves in the middle of large sums of money moving back and forth between the so called have and have nots. Of course large sums will be spent on building additional bureaucracies. From their point of view, I think that they want the power to tax us directly. I can't see the political will in either the U.S. nor in Canada to allow this.
I think the fabric of the global warming quilt is unravelling. Every day brings new revelations of corruption and lies. The center cannot hold.
Tweet
Comment